The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

03 Aug 2015 8:10:49am

Text

PreviousMessage

Your piece seems to shift in the surge of tides here but to answer your base premise.

No, porn is not today's opium of the masses. One porn is behaviourly addictive not chemically addictive this makes it substantially different to opium.

Two, you can focus on limited circumstances to try and draw a conclusion as much as you want but at the end of the day if porn is damaging to a single person it really is their problem not one of society. You could even argue that there are select examples of religeon which has hurt and killed people, politics, food.

You seem to be picking porn because you have a problem with porn.

To argue that internet providers should filter out porn is just plain wrong. Information should not be filtered, and legal information should never be surpressed. Otherwise why shouldn't I argue that the obvious damage caused by zealotry is damaging and internet providers should filter all that out. We could move to a political forum and argue that x or y party is damaging and they should be filtered.

Filtering legal information is abhorrent, regardless of weather you agree with it or not.